9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 627X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes. - I. T. A. No. 2488 /Mum/ 2013(assessment year 2009-10). - - - Dated:- 14-8-2015 - D. MANMOHAN (Vice-President) and R. C. SHARMA (Accountant Member) Firoze Andhyarujina for the appellant. Love Kumar for the respondent. ORDER The order of the Bench was delivered by 1. R. C. Sharma (Accountant Member).-This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai dated February 18, 2013, for the assessment year 2009-10, in the matter of order passed under section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. In this appeal, the grievances of the assessee against the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 015 [2015] 373 ITR 673 (SC). 5. We have considered the rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from the record that the assessee filed return of income claiming rental income as business income and the same was processed under section 143(1) on December 20, 2005, whereas, during the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2007-08, the Assessing Officer found that rental income received by the assessee is taxable as income from house property. Therefore, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment year under consideration on the plea that instead of standard deduction under section 24, the assessee had claimed business expenses. Thereafter in the assessment framed under section 143( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,91,755 6. For earning these income the assessee has claimed expenses on account of security charges, repairs and maintenance, business promotion expenses, sub-lease expenses and administrative expenses, etc., which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer and he assessed the income offered as business income, under the head income from house property. The hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Properties and Investments Ltd. v. CIT C. A. No. 4494 of 2004 [2015] 373 ITR 673 (SC), by considering its earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sultan Brothers (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC), and Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1962] 44 ITR 362 (SC) held that holding of property and earnin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
